On Point blog, page 1 of 3
COA affirms recommitment and involuntary medication orders over sufficiency and hearsay challenges in detailed discussion
Fond du Lac County v. D.P.E., 2025AP66-FT, 4/30/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms the circuit court’s orders recommitting D.P.E. (referred to as “Donald”) and authorizing the involuntarily administration of medication. Donald argued on appeal that the county did not present sufficient evidence to establish dangerousness and failed to meet its burden to prove he was not competent to refuse medication.
COA holds that County sufficiently proved dangerousness under second standard
Trempealeau County v. C.B.O., 2024AP1520-FT, 2/4/25, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms, holding that the evidence of a verbal threat to kill someone, and “Carl’s” actions during a subsequent police chase, were both sufficient to establish dangerousness under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.b.
Defense Wins: COA reverses Chapter 51 commitment for insufficient evidence of dangerousness.
Monroe County v. M.C., 2024AP924, 12/12/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s commitment order under Chapter 51 where the court did not make sufficient factual findings to support its conclusion that M.C. was dangerous, as required by D.J.W.
COA rejects challenges to commitment under the 51.20(1)(a)2.b. dangerousness standard
Waukesha County v. M.D.S., Jr., 2024AP1315, District II, 11/6/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects “Smith’s” challenges raising commonly-litigated appellate issues and affirms in this chapter 51 case, concluding that the circuit court applied the correct legal standard and the county met its burden to show that Smith was dangerous under sub. 2.b.
Defense Wins: COA reverses commitment order
St. Croix County v. B.T.C., 2023AP2085, 6/11/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In the second decision this week reversing a circuit court’s commitment order under Chapter 51, the COA concludes that respondent telling a police officer that he would “bring the chief to justice” not sufficient to establish the respondent is “dangerous.”
Defense Win! Insufficient evidence of dangerousness under first or second standards of dangerousness
Marinette County v. C.R.J., 2023AP1695-FT, 4/16/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
C.R.J. (“Caleb”) challenged his commitment on two fronts: (1) the circuit court’s failure to comply with Langlade County v. D.J.W.’s “specific factual findings” mandate and (2) the county failed to introduce sufficient evidence of dangerousness under either standard. After critiquing the circuit court’s factual findings, the court agrees with Caleb that insufficient evidence existed to involuntarily commit him.
COA affirms initial commitment order; expresses critical thoughts as to “flood” of 51 appeals and hints at a renewed willingness to find at least some appeals moot
Winnebago County v. C.H., 2023AP505, 8/30/23, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In this Ch. 51 appeal, COA swats aside familiar 51 arguments, expresses its frustration with a “flood” of Ch. 51 appeals and, with approving citation to a dissent from SCOW, hints that we may not have heard the last of the mootness doctrine in COA with respect to 51 appeals.
Yelling and throwing “roll of tape” at father sufficient to establish dangerousness under Ch. 51
Kenosha County v. L.A.T., 2022AP1730, District II, 8/23/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
L.A.T. (“Linda”) convinced the court of appeals the circuit court erred by admitting and relying on hearsay testimony from a psychiatrist to support its dangerousness finding. However, the court holds that sufficient non-hearsay evidence established that “Linda’s pattern of anger and aggressive behavior that caused others to seek law enforcement assistance…was sufficient to establish that others were in reasonable fear of violent behavior and/or serious physical harm at Linda’s hands.” (Op., ¶3).
COA applies L.X.D.-O. and affirms involuntary commitment
Racine County v. P.J.L, 2023AP254, District 2, 7/19/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
In Outagamie County v. L.X.D.-O., 2023 WI App 17, ¶36, 407 Wis. 2d 518, 991 N.W.2d 518 (PFR denied), the court of appeals rejected a sufficiency challenge to an involuntary medication order and held that an examiner’s report need not be entered into evidence in order for the circuit court to consider the information contained therein. Now, the court extends L.X.D.-O. to an initial commitment order itself under the same rationale. Opinion, ¶20 n.6.
Evidence sufficient to support finding of dangerousness under s. 51.20
Winnebago County v. T.G., 2022AP2078, District 2, 6/14/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
At the final hearing on a petition to commit T.G. (“Thomas”) under § 51.20, the County presented evidence he threw urine and feces at a guard on one occasion and later made a threat that he’d act in a way that would require staff to “suit up” and do a cell extraction and then “hurt” staff. (¶¶3-5). Considered together, this evidence satisfied the dangerousness standard under § 51.20(1)(a)2.b.